User:Karathompson1/The K.A.J. and Cora Mackenzie House/Pdxpendable Peer Review

Peer review
This is where you will complete your peer review exercise. Please use the following template to fill out your review.

General info

 * Whose work are you reviewing? (provide username) Karathompson1
 * Link to draft you're reviewing: User:Karathompson1/The K.A.J. and Cora Mackenzie House

Guiding questions:


 * Has the Lead been updated to reflect the new content added by your peer?
 * Does the Lead include an introductory sentence that concisely and clearly describes the article's topic?
 * Does the Lead include a brief description of the article's major sections?
 * Does the Lead include information that is not present in the article?
 * Is the Lead concise or is it overly detailed?

Lead evaluation
Your lead offers a good deal of information fairly concisely. One thing I thought was missing was some sort of mention of the Richardsonian Romanesque style the building features. The lead is also a great place to link to other Wikipedia articles.

Content evaluation
You provide a lot of details on a variety of sub-topics. I especially liked your description of the building and examples of other Romanesque-style buildings. I'm not sure how much information is available, but maybe some further elaboration on Kenneth Mackenzie would be good (I would also move the mention of his wife from the lead to the body just to keep the lead that much more concise & sharp). I'm also curious about William Temple as the name is featured prominently throughout the lead, but is absent in the body. That might be an opportunity for some further history on the subject. Lastly, I'm not sure if this is just my impression, but I think that your concise summary of Richardsonian Romanesque style might be better off outside the article since this is Wikipedia. It fits wonderfully in the Medieval Portland database, but I think Wikipedia prefers we link to articles on information that is not the highlight of our article. It's a way of networking on the site.

Tone and balance evaluation
You do a good job overall of sticking to facts and citing your sources throughout the page. You also give great physical descriptions of the architecture.

Sources and references evaluation
You have a good number and good quality of sources from what I've read. They really help in your descriptions of facts and complement the article well. I found the NRHP article helpful in my article, and I'm curious if you might as well beyond the registration date.

Organization evaluation
The article feels well-organized to me. Your lead introduces the content, and you start with history before moving on into architecture. If/when you add a NRHP infobox for the sidebar, I think the article will look great. A minor mechanical point I noticed is that you used double dashes -- instead of em dashes — in your paragraphs.

Images and media evaluation
There aren't any images yet, but I'm sure you can find something to put in a future NRHP infobox. It's a lovely building.

New Article Evaluation
With some more links to Wikipedia articles on topics you mentioned in the article and the NRHP infobox, I can see your article right next to other NRHP-related entries.

Overall evaluation
Your writing is strong, and I look forward to what else you might add/revise. Taking care of other chores like info boxes, sections, and links will really help things come together. Great work so far! Pdxpendable (talk) 04:46, 15 May 2020 (UTC)